On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:08:03 +1000
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:00:04PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > They were? You personally verified that each and every one was spam?
> of course not. i do, however, keep an eye on my mail logs and know what
> kind of traffic it gets.
Then you might want revise your statement. You claimed they were all spam
when you do not know they were. Kinda reminds me of Alan Conner there.
> also, i'm confident that if my anti-spam system rejects something then there
> is only a miniscule (i.e. insignificant) chance that that it was a false
> positive. this chance is so small that i simply don't care.
Granted. But this is different than ALL of them being spam.
> if any given false positive was important or from someone i actually want to
> hear from then they will find some other way of contacting me....i'm
> certainly not going to accept over 25000 more spams per week just on the off
> chance that one of them might be from someone i know with a misconfigured
> mail server or whatever.
You don't have to. Amazingly enough I reject quite a few pieces of spam
based not on their IP block but on the comprehensive tests and Bayesian
classification that SA provides. Might I suggest you go through the archives
of -devel and -users. I provided stats on how much mail I get, how much gets
through and how much time I spend a day perusing it. I dare say I'm getting
far better return on my invested time than you are without obsessing over the
matter as much as you are. If you had a setup like mine you might have to
peruse... Well, about the same amount as you are now, reject just as much and
do far less maintenance doing it.
But then, I'm running Exim which has inferior spam prevention techniques
compared to the all-powerful Postfix. Obviously I should be getting far more
than you... right?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpxWB9_fCEci.pgp
Description: PGP signature